Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 381

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Angiography alone versus angiography plus optical coherence tomography to guide decision-making during percutaneous coronary intervention: the Centro per la Lotta contro l’Infarto-Optimisation of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (CLI-OPCI) study

Prati, Francesco, Di Vito, Luca, Biondi-Zoccai, Giuseppe, Occhipinti, Michele, La Manna, Alessio, Tamburino, Corrado, Burzotta, Francesco, Trani, Carlo, Porto, Italo, Ramazzotti, Vito, Imola, Fabrizio, Manzoli, Alessandro, Materia, Laura, Cremonesi, Alberto, Albertucci, Mario·2012·EuroIntervention

Abstract

AIMS: Angiographic guidance for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has substantial limitations. The superior spatial resolution of optical coherence tomography (OCT) could translate into meaningful clinical benefits. We aimed to compare angiographic guidance alone versus angiographic plus OCT guidance for PCI. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients undergoing PCI with angiographic plus OCT guidance (OCT group) were compared with matched patients undergoing PCI with angiographic only guidance (Angio group) within 30 days. The primary endpoint was the one-year rate of cardiac death or myocardial infarction (MI). A total of 670 patients were included, 335 in the OCT group and 335 in the Angio group. OCT disclosed adverse features requiring further interventions in 34.7%. Unadjusted analyses showed that the OCT group had a significantly lower one-year risk of cardiac death (1.2% vs. 4.5%, p=0.010), cardiac death or MI (6.6% vs. 13.0%, p=0.006), and the composite of cardiac death, MI, or repeat revascularisation (9.6% vs. 14.8%, p=0.044). Angiographic plus OCT guidance was associated with a significantly lower risk of cardiac death or MI even at extensive multivariable analysis adjusting for baseline and procedural differences between the groups (OR=0.49 [0.25-0.96], p=0.037) and at propensity-score adjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This observational study, the first ever formally to appraise OCT guidance for PCI decision-making, suggests that the use of OCT can improve clinical outcomes of patients undergoing PCI.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4244/eijv8i7a125

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 381

Metadata

Authors
Prati, F., Di Vito, L., Biondi-Zoccai, G., Occhipinti, M., La Manna, A., Tamburino, C., Burzotta, F., Trani, C., Porto, I., Ramazzotti, V., Imola, F., Manzoli, A., Materia, L., Cremonesi, A., & Albertucci, M.
Venue
EuroIntervention
Published
2012-11
Volume
8
Issue
7
Pages
823-829
ISSN
1774-024X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2126377596
Cited by
381
References
0
FWCI
31.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Angiography alone versus angiography plus optical coherence tomography to guide decision-making during percutaneous coronary intervention: the Centro per la Lotta contro l’Infarto-Optimisation of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (CLI-OPCI) study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4244/eijv8i7a125
The paper
Prati, F., Di Vito, L., Biondi-Zoccai, G., Occhipinti, M., La Manna, A., Tamburino, C., Burzotta, F., Trani, C., Porto, I., Ramazzotti, V., Imola, F., Manzoli, A., Materia, L., Cremonesi, A., & Albertucci, M. (2012). Angiography alone versus angiography plus optical coherence tomography to guide decision-making during percutaneous coronary intervention: the Centro per la Lotta contro l’Infarto-Optimisation of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (CLI-OPCI) study. EuroIntervention. https://doi.org/10.4244/eijv8i7a125

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.